Inside Health

Bush vs. the Laureates: How Science Became a Partisan Issue

By ANDREW C. REVKIN

Published: October 19, 2004

Why is science seemingly at war with President Bush?

For nearly four years, and with rising intensity, scientists in and out of government have criticized the Bush administration, saying it has selected or suppressed research findings to suit preset policies, skewed advisory panels or ignored unwelcome advice, and quashed discussion within federal research agencies.

Administration officials see some of the criticism as partisan, and some perhaps a function of unrealistic expectations on the part of scientists about their role in policy debates. ''This administration really does not like regulation and it believes in market processes in general,'' said Dr. John H. Marburger III, the president's science adviser, who is a Democrat.

''So there's always going to be a tilt in an administration like this one to a certain set of actions that you take to achieve some policy objective,'' he went on. ''In general, science may give you some limits and tell you some boundary conditions on that set of actions, but it really doesn't tell you what to do.''

Dr. Jesse H. Ausubel, an expert on energy and climate at Rockefeller University, said some of the bitterness expressed by other researchers could stem from their being excluded from policy circles that were open to them under previous administrations. ''So these people who believe themselves important feel themselves belittled,'' he said.

Indeed, much of the criticism has come from private groups, like the Union of Concerned Scientists and many environmental organizations, with long records of opposing positions the administration favors.

Nevertheless, political action by scientists has not been so forceful since 1964, when Barry Goldwater's statements promoting the deployment of battlefield nuclear weapons spawned the creation of the 100,000-member group Scientists and Engineers for Johnson.

This year, 48 Nobel laureates dropped all pretense of nonpartisanship as they signed a letter endorsing Senator John Kerry. ''Unlike previous administrations, Republican and Democratic alike, the Bush administration has ignored unbiased scientific advice in the policy making that is so important to our collective welfare,'' they wrote. The critics include members of past Republican administrations.

And battles continue to erupt in government agencies over how to communicate research findings that might clash with administration policies.

This month, three NASA scientists and several officials at NASA headquarters and at two agency research centers described how news releases on new global warming studies had been revised by administrators to play down definitiveness or risks. The scientists and officials said other releases had been delayed. ''You have to be evenhanded in reporting science results, and it's apparent that there is a tendency for that not to be occurring now,'' said Dr. James E. Hansen, a climate expert who is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan.

Glenn Mahone, the assistant administrator of NASA for public affairs, yesterday denied that any releases on climate had been held up or modified by anything other than normal reviews. ''There has been a slowdown,'' he said.

But he insisted, ''There is nothing in terms of any kind of approval process with the White House.''

Earlier this year, after continuing complaints that the White House was asking litmus-test questions of nominees for scientific advisory panels, the first question asked of a candidate for a panel on Arctic issues, the candidate said, was: ''Do you support the president?''

When asked about such incidents, officials with the Bush campaign call attention to Mr. Bush's frequent queries to the National Academy of Sciences as evidence of his desire for good advice on technical issues.

''This president believes in pursuing the best, most objective science, and his record proves that,'' said Brian Jones, a campaign spokesman.

Yet complaints about the administration's approach to scientific information are coming even from within the government. Many career scientists and officials have expressed frustration and anger privately but were unwilling to be identified for fear of losing their jobs. But a few have stepped forward, including Dr. Hansen at NASA, who has been researching global warming and conveying its implications to Congress and the White House for two decades.

Dr. Hansen, who was invited to brief the Bush cabinet twice on climate and whose work has been cited by Mr. Bush, said he had decided to speak publicly about the situation because he was convinced global warming posed a serious threat and that further delays in addressing it would add to the risks.

''It's something that I've been worrying about for months,'' he said, describing his decision. ''If I don't do something now I'll regret it.

''Under the Clinton-Gore administration, you did have occasions when Al Gore knew the answer he wanted, and he got annoyed if you presented something that wasn't consistent with that,'' Dr. Hansen said. ''I got a little fed up with him, but it was not institutionalized the way it is now.''